Citation Nr: 0423750
Decision Date: 08/27/04 Archive Date: 09/01/04
DOCKET NO. 03-02 428 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland,
Oregon
THE ISSUES
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder.
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee
disorder.
Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder.
Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Oregon Department of Veterans'
Affairs
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Elizabeth Spaur, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from May 1962 to March 1964.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a February 2002 decision by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland, Oregon,
Regional Office (RO). That decision denied service
connection for a low back disorder, bilateral knee disorder,
left hip disorder and left ankle disorder.
The veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law
Judge at a hearing held at the RO in March 2004. The Board
notes that the veteran perfected an appeal with regard to the
issue of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle
disorder. However, in March 2004, the veteran formally
withdrew this issue. Therefore, it is not currently before
the Board.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if
further action is required on your part.
REMAND
Service medical records are silent with regard to complaints,
findings or treatment related to the low back, knees, left
hip or left ankle. Service personnel records indicate that
the veteran completed basic airborne training and earned a
parachute badge during service. At his March 2004 hearing,
the veteran testified that his current joint disabilities are
a result of his multiple parachute jumps during service. He
indicated that after basic airborne training he completed at
least 26 parachute jumps during the remainder of his service.
He stated that he did not go to sick call for many of his
injuries because he would have been looked down on by his
Sergeant if he did. He also reported seeking private
treatment immediately after service. The veteran stated that
he attempted to obtain those private treatment records, but
was informed that such records had been purged from the
providers' files.
A September 1986 private treatment note reflected treatment
for complaints of pain in multiple joints, including the
knees and left ankle. The veteran reported experiencing such
joint pain for at least 10 years. The physician noted that
the veteran had chronic polyarthralgias, likely related to an
old trauma or overuse. Multiple private treatment records
developed in the 1990s reflect continued treatment for
complaints associated with the veteran's low back, knees,
left hip and left ankle. It is unclear from such records
exactly what the veteran's current disabilities are with
regard to these specific joints. The Board finds that based
on recent treatment records documenting continued complaints,
and the September 1986 private treatment note that reflects
chronic joint complaints that may be linked to previous
trauma or overuse, as well as the veteran's service history
as a paratrooper, a VA examination is necessary in order to
make a decision in this claim.
Accordingly, the claim is REMANDED for the following:
1. The RO should arrange for a VA
examination that is appropriate to
determine the nature and etiology of any
current low back, bilateral knee, left
hip or left ankle disorder. Any further
indicated special studies should be
conducted. A copy of the claims file and
a separate copy of this remand should be
made available to the examiner for
review. The examiner is specifically
requested to comment as to whether any
clinically indicated findings of
pathology in the joint areas in question
would be consistent with old trauma such
as the repeated stress associated with
parachute jumping during service. Any
opinion so expressed should be
accompanied by the examiner's reasoning
for such opinion.
2. After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent
possible, the RO should again review the
record. If any benefit sought on appeal,
for which a notice of disagreement has
been filed, remains denied, the veteran
and his representative should be
furnished a supplemental statement of the
case and given the opportunity to respond
thereto.
The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, §
707(a), (b), 117 Stat. 2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38
U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112).
_________________________________________________
JEFF MARTIN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003).